From 13 January 2026, we will no longer accept new case enquiries by email. Please use our online complaint form to bring a complaint to us. This helps us respond to you more quickly.

Need help? Other ways to contact us.

Peabody Trust (202334037)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334037

Peabody Trust

10 September 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and anti-social behaviour (ASB) by a neighbour.
  2. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, since 2007. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a block. The neighbour lived directly above the resident until December 2023.
  2. Between 2017 and 2023 the resident reported at least 10 leaks from the neighbour’s property. The landlord attended to investigate and resolve the leaks but, at times, was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property.
  3. The resident reported ASB by the neighbour from at least March 2022, including noise nuisance, rubbish concerns, misuse of and damage to communal areas, security issues, Hate Crime and the neighbour exposing themselves. In response, the landlord said it spoke to and visited the neighbour on multiple occasions, sent a warning letter and consulted internally and externally regarding support in place for them.
  4. On 13 December 2023 the resident complained to the landlord, saying it had mismanaged the leaks and ASB. He said there was water damage throughout the property, which had caused mould growth, and his mental and physical health had been affected. He felt the landlord had not done enough to resolve the situation. He asked for compensation for the damage, stress and time spent dealing with the matter.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 19 February 2024 acknowledged failings in its handling of the matter. It apologised and offered £952.93 compensation (£50 for complaint handling and £902.93 for time, trouble and inconvenience, which it said was 2% of the weekly rent between 2017 and 2024).
  6. Six days later the resident said he was dissatisfied with the compensation offered, as he did not feel it reflected the distress he had suffered. The following month the landlord offered increased compensation of £1,612.93 (£60 for complaint handling, £650 for its handling of the ASB reports and £902.93 for its handling of the repairs).
  7. The resident escalated the complaint on 18 March 2023 as he was still not satisfied with the compensation offered. He said the landlord had inspected the property 3 weeks earlier, but no action had been taken to complete the repairs.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 9 August 2024 reiterated the stage 1 response. It acknowledged there had been further delays and poor communication in its handling of the repairs since the stage 1 response; and additional complaint handling failures. It apologised and offered £997.93 compensation (£952.93 offered at stage 1, an additional £10 for delays and poor communication in its handling of the repairs and an additional £35 for complaint handling delays).
  9. The resident asked us to investigate his complaint the same month. He felt the compensation offered did not reflect the stress and hardship he had endured. He wanted action to be taken to resolve the issues and a higher amount of compensation.

Assessment and findings

Leaks and ASB by the neighbour

  1. The landlord was responsible for investigating and resolving leaks from the neighbour’s property. If a resident’s actions cause a leak, including wilful damage, the landlord may not be responsible for repairing this. In this case, whether the landlord was responsible for the repairs, or not, it was responsible for taking action to ensure the leaks were resolved in the shortest time possible, so as to reduce the impact on the property, and the resident.
  2. The resident has said the issues with the neighbour started in 2010. We will not investigate historic events in detail and will generally only consider events that occurred 12 months before the formal complaint was raised. In this case, the landlord investigated events from 2017 onwards, so we have done the same. Anything that happened before 2017 has been considered for context only.
  3. When the resident reported leaks between 2017 and 2023, the landlord raised multiple emergency works orders to investigate and make safe the electrics. It was sensible for the landlord to prioritise these repairs as emergencies, particularly given the majority of the leaks were noted as being uncontainable.
  4. Generally, the landlord attended in line with its emergency repair timescale of 24 hours. However, on a number of occasions, it was unable to gain access to the neighbour’s property and had to make multiple attempts to investigate and resolve the leaks. This resulted in the leaks being ongoing for days, weeks, and in 2023, there was an intermittent leak for around 4 months between August and December 2023, until the neighbour was rehoused.
  5. While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s inability to investigate and repair the leaks within the committed timescale was not a failure on its part. Further, we recognise that the neighbour’s individual circumstances presented challenges for the landlord in managing and resolving the leaks.
  6. The records show the landlord made contact with the neighbour for access, including by phone and in person, which was reasonable. It also engaged with the neighbour’s support worker when trying to gain access, which was sensible. However, considering the number of leaks that occurred over the 6 year period, the suspected cause of some of these, and the impact on the resident and the property, the landlord should have done more to find a permanent solution sooner.
  7. Ultimately, the landlord rehoused the neighbour in December 2023, and it has said it was working on this for around 9 months. However, prior to this, there is no record of the landlord considering any other form of action, such as forcing access or seeking an injunction. The individual circumstances of the neighbour may have meant these options were not possible, but we have seen no record that the landlord even considered them, which it should done. Even when the resident suggested the landlord should force access on 4 September 2023, there is no evidence the landlord considered or responded to this. This was a failure which amounts to maladministration and meant the landlord missed opportunities to resolve the issues sooner.
  8. While the landlord may have been limited in the actions it could take to resolve the leaks, it could have done more to address the impact on the resident. The resident told the landlord from at least 2022 that the condition of the property was impacting his mental and physical health due to repeated leaks, damp and mould build up and a lack of lighting. Further, some of the leaks involved sewage water entering the property, which is a health hazard.
  9. Despite this, we have seen no evidence that the landlord assessed whether the property was habitable and/or considered temporarily rehousing him, while it found a permanent solution. This is a failure that amounts to maladministration and means the resident was left living in poor conditions for an extended period. We order the landlord to inspect the property to assess whether it is habitable and confirm the outcome of this in writing to the resident. If the landlord deems the property is uninhabitable, it must offer temporary rehousing in line with its decant policy, until such time as the required works are completed and the property is considered habitable.
  10. The landlord inspected the property on 26 February 2024, and identified works required. Despite this being more than 18 months ago, the resident has told us that no works have been completed and he continues to live in the property with water damage throughout, damp and mould and no lighting. He has said this means, at times, he has to use torches to move around the property. This delay amounts to maladministration and has left the resident feeling the landlord is not taking the matter seriously.
  11. In September 2024 the resident challenged the scope of the proposed works. Despite the landlord agreeing to consider this the same month, there is no evidence it did. It was only after further contact from the resident in November and December 2024 that the landlord confirmed its position 4 months later, on 9 January 2025. It said it would not widen the scope of the works and would carry them out in line with the surveyor’s findings only.
  12. The landlord was entitled to rely on its surveyor’s opinion to set the scope of works and was not required to widen the scope when the resident challenged it. While the landlord’s response was reasonable, it should have told the resident this sooner. Its failure to do so has contributed to the overall delay in resolving this matter and amounts to maladministration.
  13. On 26 February 2025 the resident confirmed he was happy for the works to go ahead as per the scope set by the landlord. Since then, he has emailed the landlord at least 6 times in the last 7 months asking for updates. While the landlord has responded, it has merely said it is seeking information from the surveyor and not included any meaningful update on when the works will be completed. This delay and poor communication amounts to maladministration and has caused the resident to lose all faith in the landlord. We order the landlord to confirm in writing a start date for the works and an expected timescale for their completion. It should also include the scope of the works, contractor details and any additional information about the works, including impact on the resident considering his disability.
  14. The landlord’s website gives examples of ASB as noise, including loud music, vandalism and dumping rubbish. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord dealt with the resident’s reports in line with its ASB policy. This says all residents who report an incident of ASB will be assessed for their risk and vulnerability to ensure the appropriate level of support can be provided.
  15. The landlord has provided evidence of one risk assessment completed for the resident in 2023. As the resident made multiple reports of ASB in 2022 and 2023, this was insufficient and it should have completed earlier assessments, or reviews of the assessments. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord ever discussed support available for the resident, despite him telling it on more than one occasion that he was disabled.
  16. When the resident asked the landlord in August 2023 what support it could provide, the landlord only replied and asked him to let it know what it could do to help and support him. It gave no suggestions and did not explore this any further with him by arranging to visit or speak with him, which would have been sensible. This was a failure that amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling unsupported. This was particularly concerning as the resident had reported Hate Crime incidents as part of the ASB.
  17. In response to the ASB reports in 2022 and 2023, the landlord said it spoke to and visited the neighbour on several occasions, sent a warning letter in February 2023 and consulted internally and externally regarding support in place for them. These were all sensible actions to take.
  18. Despite these actions, the resident reported that the problems persisted, and in March 2022 and September 2023, he told the landlord more needed to be done. In response, the landlord said it was limited in what it could do and it needed to follow a process, which could take time. While sensible for the landlord to explain its limitations to the resident, it did not give any information about what action it was taking or could take to address the ongoing behaviour. This was important to reassure the resident that it was doing something to resolve the issues.
  19. While the landlord may have been limited in what it could tell the resident about support in place for the neighbour, it could have shared information about actions being taken or considered; and provided further reassurance about its processes. The resident has said he felt the landlord put the needs of the neighbour above his. Considering the landlord’s failure to tell the resident what action it was taking or could take to address his concerns, it is understandable that he felt this way. This amounts to maladministration and meant the resident was not reassured that the landlord was taking the matter seriously, or doing enough to resolve the issues.
  20. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would respond to reports of ASB within 2 working days. The landlord adhered to this in July 2023, but failed to do so on at least 4 other occasions between March 2022 and June 2023. In March 2022 and February 2023, it responded in 6 and 3 working days respectively, and in March and June 2023, there is no evidence it responded at all to the resident’s reports. These communication failures left the resident feeling ignored and that the landlord did not care about him. This amounts to maladministration.
  21. The landlord’s ASB policy said it would agree an action plan with the complainant and keep them informed of the actions it took. In this case, while some actions were taken, there is no evidence that a formal action plan was ever agreed or reviewed with the resident. Similarly, while updates were given, these were in response to the resident asking for them, rather than being sent proactively.
  22. This reactive approach is not a best practice approach to ASB handling, as the landlord should proactively contact the resident at agreed intervals to provide updates. This removes the need for the resident to chase and shows them the landlord is taking the matter seriously. The landlord’s approach in this case left the resident feeling ignored and let down. This amounts to maladministration.
  23. The resident and the neighbour had different neighbourhood managers, both of whom were responsible for different aspects of this matter. Where there are multiple departments or staff members involved in a situation, it is sensible for the landlord to identify a single point of contact to ensure consistency and reduce repeat contacts from the resident. There is no evidence the landlord did that in this case, which meant the resident was in contact with both members of staff and was, at times, passed between them for updates on progress or answers to queries.
  24. Further, the resident was reporting issues to one staff member, but the other later said they were not aware of this. This suggests there was not a regular exchange of information between them, which is vital when multiple members of staff are involved in a complex case such as this. This is a concern and was frustrating for the resident, as he had to make the same reports to multiple members of staff. This contributed to the landlord’s poor communication in this case and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. This amounts to maladministration.
  25. The resident has provided extensive records of contact with the landlord, including emails and WhatsApp messages, some of which the landlord has failed to provide. This is a concern and indicates poor record keeping practices within the landlord. It is vital that landlords keep detailed records of all actions and contacts so they can account for their actions to residents and us, where required. This is particularly important in ASB cases as detailed records may be required if legal action is needed.
  26. In addition to the missing contact records, we have seen reference to visits and contact with the neighbour, which we have not seen full records for. It is not clear if this is because the landlord has not properly recorded them, or failed to provide them. Regardless, this is a concern and means we have not been able to make a full assessment of whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was reasonable. We order the landlord to deliver training to all staff involved in ASB handling about the importance of keeping detailed records of all actions and contacts.
  27. The resident told the landlord he felt it was discriminating against him by its lack of action. We cannot determine whether there was discrimination, as this is a matter for the courts. However, we have assessed how the landlord responded to this concern. It said there was no evidence of discrimination, but acknowledged the failures in its handling of the matter had caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. While disappointing for the resident, this was reasonable and showed the landlord had considered his concerns.
  28. Considering the impact of the landlord’s failures on the resident, it is understandable that he felt there was discrimination. While the landlord may not have intended to discriminate against him, it is important that it recognises the significant impact of its failures in this case and takes action to implement learning from this, so it can prevent similar failures in the future. We order the landlord to review this case to identify why the failures occurred and what action it has taken/will take to prevent similar failures happening in the future. A written update to be sent to the resident and us with the outcome of this review.
  29. The landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of this matter, apologised and offered a total of £1,592.93 compensation. While positive that it did this, the landlord has not done enough to put things right for the resident as the repairs have not even started. This is despite the neighbour being moved more than 18 months ago and the resident repeatedly telling the landlord this is impacting his health. As the landlord has not done enough to fully put things right, a finding of maladministration is appropriate.
  30. The impact of this situation on the resident has been severe and long-term. Considering the complexities of the case and the challenges faced by the landlord in its management of these issues, there is mitigation, which means a finding of severe maladministration is not appropriate. Regardless, the impact on the resident is the same and so the compensation required to put things right is in line with our remedies guidance for severe maladministration findings.
  31. At stage 1, the landlord calculated the compensation amount for distress and inconvenience based on a percentage of the rental amount. We are not calculating compensation in this way, as this is not being paid in recognition of loss of use of all or part of the property. Instead, we have based our offer on our remedies guidance, taking into account what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
  32. We order the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £2,625 compensation (inclusive of the £1,562.93 already offered). This is in line with our remedies guidance for failures which have had a severe and long-term impact on the resident and accumulated over a significant period of time. We have calculated this at £25 per month for 105 months (January 2017 to September 2025).
  33. The resident told the landlord this matter had negatively impacted his health and asked for compensation to reflect this. In its increased compensation offer of 12 March 2024, the landlord told him it could not compensate for personal injury as this needed to be claimed via its insurance team. It also provided an email address for him to make further enquiries about this.
  34. This was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy which says it will not pay compensation for personal injury claims relating to physical or mental health; and these would be directed to its insurance team to assess. We are also unable to make a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. Therefore, we would advise him to seek advice from the landlord’s insurance team about making a claim of this nature, if he wishes to pursue this further.
  35. The resident has said some of his personal items have been damaged as a result of leaks and the landlord’s mishandling of them. We cannot make a determination in respect of liability, as this is a matter for the landlord’s insurer to consider. The landlord’s compensation policy says, where it is alleged that it is at fault for any damage to furniture, decoration or personal belongings, it should take appropriate steps to investigate and establish whether it has caused or exacerbated any damage through its actions or inactions before referring the issue to insurers. As the landlord, and us, have identified failure in its handling of this matter, we order it to confirm in writing to the resident how he can make a claim in respect of his damaged items, including what evidence he needs to provide to support this.

Complaint handling

  1. In the resident’s complaint, he said he first reported leaks from the neighbour’s property in 2010. The landlord acknowledged this in its complaint responses but advised it would only investigate matters back to 2017. The landlord’s complaints policy said it would not deal with issues that happened more than 12 months ago. However, in exceptional circumstances it could use its discretion to accept a complaint submitted outside of this timescale. While disappointing for the resident that the landlord would not investigate the events dating back to 2010, this was reasonable and in line with its policy. The landlord did use its discretion and extended the period of investigation by more than 5 years. This was sensible considering the circumstances and showed it was taking the complaint seriously.
  2. Before the resident made his complaint in December 2023, he asked the landlord on 24 September 2023 to reduce his rent as compensation for its mismanagement of the issues. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation. It confirmed the word ‘complaint’ did not need to be used for it to be treated as such. Considering this, and that the resident had said he felt the landlord had mismanaged the situation, the landlord should have treated this request as a formal complaint and logged this in September 2023. Its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
  3. The resident went on to ask for compensation on at least 4 more occasions in October and November 2023. It was only on 14 November 2023, that the landlord replied to this request and told the resident he needed to raise it as a formal complaint. While correct that this needed to be dealt with as a complaint, the landlord should have raised the complaint for him at that time. Its failure to do so meant he expended further time and trouble submitting the complaint on 13 December 2023, when he had already expressed dissatisfaction on at least 5 previous occasions. This amounts to maladministration.
  4. The landlord sent the stage 1 response in 45 working days. This was significantly over the 10 working day response time in its complaints policy. During the period of delay, there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident and it was only after he expended time and trouble chasing for updates, via us, on 2 occasions in February 2024, that the landlord sent the response. This amounts to maladministration.
  5. The resident replied to the stage 1 response on 25 February 2024 and said he was dissatisfied with the compensation offered. In order to review the amount of compensation offered, a landlord must review the circumstances of the case, so it can assess whether the amount offered is reasonable. Therefore, the resident’s request should have been treated as a request to escalate the complaint to stage 2; but it was not. This amounts to maladministration.
  6. The landlord went on to review the compensation amount and offered an additional amount. Despite this, it failed to include this in its further offer of compensation at stage 2. This meant the amount offered in the final response, was lower than a previous amount offered. This was confusing for the resident and made him feel the landlord did not know what it was doing. This amounts to maladministration.
  7. The landlord sent the stage 2 response in 100 working days. This was, again, significantly over the 20 working day timeframe in its complaints policy. During the period of delay, the landlord gave the resident revised timescales on 2 occasions in May and June 2024, but did not meet them. It was only after further contact from the resident, via us, on 4 August 2024, that the landlord sent the response. This was not in line with its complaints policy, which said an extension to the response deadline should not exceed a further 10 working days, without good reason. This delay and poor communication amounts to maladministration.
  8. The landlord acknowledged failure in its complaint handling, apologised and offered a total of £95 compensation. While positive that it identified failure and offered redress, this is not proportionate to the failings identified. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is appropriate. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £175 compensation (inclusive of the £95 already offered, if not done so). This is in line with our remedies guidance and is reflective of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced, as a result of the landlord’s failures.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of leaks and ASB by a neighbour.
    2. Formal complaint.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Inspected the property to assess whether it is habitable and confirmed the outcome in writing to the resident. If the landlord deems the property is uninhabitable, it must offer the resident temporary rehousing in line with its decants policy, until such time as the required works are completed and the property is considered habitable.
    2. Confirmed in writing a start date for the works and an expected timescale for these to be completed. It should also include the scope of the works, contractor details and any additional information about the works, including impact on the resident considering his disability.
    3. Apologised to the resident for its handling of his reports of leaks and ASB.
    4. Paid the resident £2,800 compensation, made up of:
      1. £2,625 for its handling his reports of leaks and ASB by a neighbour (inclusive of the £1,562.93 already offered, if not done so).
      2. £175 for its complaint handling (inclusive of the £95 already offered, if not done so).
    5. Confirmed in writing to the resident how he can make a claim on its insurance in respect of his damaged items, including what evidence he needs to provide to support this.
  2. Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to provide evidence that it has:
    1. Delivered training to all staff involved in ASB handling about the importance of keeping detailed records of all actions and contacts.
    2. Reviewed this case to identify why the failures occurred and what action it has taken/ will take to prevent similar failures happening in the future. A written update to be sent to the resident and us with the outcome of this review.